vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Ryerson Holding Corp (RYI), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ryerson Holding Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $104.4M, roughly 10.6× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). Ryerson Holding Corp runs the higher net margin — -55.2% vs -3.4%, a 51.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs 9.7%). Ryerson Holding Corp produced more free cash flow last quarter ($91.9M vs $-64.0K). Over the past eight quarters, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP's revenue compounded faster (-2.6% CAGR vs -5.6%).
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation is a specialty steel manufacturer headquartered in Downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is one of several companies to bear the Ampco name, and it should not be confused with the Milwaukee-based copper base alloy producer, Ampco Metal Inc.; the Miami-based cabinetry company; the Swiss aluminum corporation; or the Dallas-based tool company. Ampco was formed in 1929 and is a conglomerate made up of several previously established small steel makers. Five small compa...
Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. is a services company that processes and distributes metals, with operations in the United States, Mexico, Canada, and China. Founded in 1842, Ryerson is headquartered in Chicago and employs approximately 4,200 employees at about 100 locations.
AP vs RYI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $-37.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | 15.3% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | -3.4% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | -3.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 9.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | -781.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $-1.18 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $104.4M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $-37.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $-14.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $-5.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $-4.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-6.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $9.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $-7.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 17.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 17.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 18.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 17.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 18.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 17.6% |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | -0.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 0.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | -1.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | 0.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -0.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | -0.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -0.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | -0.6% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $-1.18 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.46 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $0.06 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $-0.18 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-0.13 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $0.29 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.22 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $10.7M | $26.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $753.1M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $2.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $26.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $29.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $30.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $33.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $27.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $35.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $28.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $41.9M |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $753.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $787.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $811.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $803.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $815.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $832.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $877.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $888.5M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $2.7B |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $2.7M | $112.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $91.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | 8.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.7% | 1.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $35.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $112.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $-8.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $23.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $-41.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $92.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $134.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $25.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $-47.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $91.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $-21.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | $13.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $-49.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $68.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $103.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $3.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $-69.6M |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | 8.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | -1.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | -4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | 9.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | -5.6% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 1.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 2.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 1.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 12.53× | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | 2.62× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AP
| Forged And Cast Mill Rolls | $67.0M | 64% |
| Air Handling Systems | $14.3M | 14% |
| Heat Exchange Coils | $13.1M | 13% |
| Centrifugal Pumps | $10.3M | 10% |
| Forged Engineered Products | $4.0M | 4% |
RYI
| US | $988.3M | 89% |
| Non Us | $116.5M | 11% |